As society moves to ‘normalize’ and legalize what God considers sin, more and more things that many consider wrong or harmful are being normalized and legalized.
I believe it will not be 20 years after homosexual MARRIAGE is legalized nationwide (and while I am against it, I recognize it will eventually occur) before pedophilia is legalized.
Its already illegal to have separate gender public restrooms in Colorado. Although I seriously doubt this was the intention, this makes it much easier for pedophiles to stalk/choose their victims.
As society moves forward in its headlong rush to not make people feel bad for doing bad things or being certain ways (its innate, or its an illness, or its genetic – pick the excuse and justification), society begins to rush headlong into decadence and crumbles much like other societies in the past. As society makes it easier to not be self-sacrificing and self-controlled, society moves toward implosion.
Our constitution and laws are meant to codify morals in the sense that they protect us from harmful actions of others and government. As we have moved to make things like sex before marriage, cohabitation, divorce, and now homosexual sex, acceptable, we have degraded the morals of our society, our children, and the future. What is important is no longer what is right, but what feels good. It used to be the role of government to ease and protect commerce and its inhabitants. Now it is the role of government to encourage individual desires and selfishness and feeling good.
Just as ‘normalizing’ (and making easier and legalizing) sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce have all had detrimental effects on ‘developed’ nations (note that many developed nations have reached a point in their birth-death rates, where there will be an insufficient number of adults to support a growing population of aging people – or are close to reaching this point without immigration), so will homosexual marriage.
Lets us examine the example of the ease with which divorce can be obtained has a highly detrimental effect on children and society. Abundant research has shown that this has damaged children immeasurably, and in turn has damaged society – with increases in behavioral problems and the likelihood that children without both parents in the home have a higher incidence poverty, of divorce and of having children out of wedlock. By redefining marriage as a contract in which one or both parties can easily break the contract, individuals and society have suffered, and are suffering. By redefining society’s mores to allow cohabitation outside of marriage, it is no longer considered taboo to cohabitate – this in turn has led to couples who do so and then marry being much more likely to divorce. This in turn causes more divorces. It is a cycle that our society has yet to unravel.
Someone said, “the only person who can make a decision about his or her sex outside of marriage, his or her cohabitation, her abortion or his or her divorce is the person himself or herself. “
I agree. However, when such things affect me – even from a purely humanistic and selfish point of view, I have a right and duty to speak out to protect myself.
Speaking from a utilitiarian perspective, it is not cost effective to allow things such as sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce, because they cost society in financial resources due to the fact that the people who participate in such things make it more likely that people will have to raise children alone and/or need counseling to deal with the consequences of such things. This in turn affect the insurance costs for all, as well as increases the tax burden for all.
Let us examine some of these costs:
If people were not to divorce, there would be no need to deal with the chemical and psychological and sociological aspects of the emotional ramifications of divorce. While there might be other issues that people would address through counseling and medical intervention, the effect of divorce would not be one of them. Additionally, there would be less drug addiction, because these same people would not suffer depression, or other psycho/socio disorders/illnesses brought on by divorce. As such they would not begin psychological treatment for these same disorders, and thus would not be introduced to medical solutions, which often lend themselves (by their very nature) to drug abuse and addiction. This in turn would reduce the likelihood of some of these people seeking drugs through fake or imagined illnesses – which costs society in terms of lost work, hospital visits/stays, and increased medical insurance and other medical costs, and increased taxes to support such things, including the loss due to thefts from people’s attempts to either obtain drugs or money to purchase the same. This in turn would also reduce the danger of physical violence/death that sometimes accompanies such thefts.
Someone else said, “As for the child support matter, this potentially valid concern does serve, in a utilitarian sense, to cut counter to the typical arguments against homosexual relationships and abortion. “
Actually, in marriages where there are no children, and only one person in the couple works, alimony must be paid in cases of divorce (in most states). This reduces the standard of living for both parties. This in turn can make it more difficult to receive health insurance, which in turn further reduces the standard of living for both people, as well as increases the cost to society for many of the same reasons mentioned above. This issue is compounded when children are involved.
Additionally, even when both parties work and there is no need for alimony, their standard of living is still reduced upon divorce, thus resulting in cost to the individuals and society as a whole.
As well, we must consider the cost of cohabitation to society. Because people who are single tend to eat out more, when they choose to cohabitate, the funds introduced to society via such activities are lacking. This is true also for those people who rent or purchase homes while they are single. The renting and purchasing of goods associated with homes/apartments introduces money into the economy – and this is reduced when two people choose to cohabitate. The benefits to society of marriage (because of child rearing and the longer and more content lives of the individuals involved) between two heterosexual people outweighs the loss to the economy in those sectors.
We mustn’t forget that people who cohabitate are more likely to separate after extended periods of time, or to divorce if they do marry, and the attendant costs to individuals and society concerning divorce apply to these people as well.
Our second someone said, “Abortion ensures that there are no children born out of such relationships, ensuring that society must not shoulder the costs of raising and supporting such children. Homosexual couples (absent artificial insemination and surrogacy) are not capable of yielding offspring and thus don’t contribute to society’s costs in that regard either. “
What you say concerning abortion is true to an extent. Except that we know those who undergo artifical insemination, or even those who do the ‘natural’ way, have the choice of whether to abort or not, based upon the results of tests run on the the baby while in the womb. Additionally, studies show (and personal experience has also shown) that abortion causes depression and other socio/psycho illnesses in many women. These in turn must be dealt with as mentioned above, and thus have a cost to society and individuals.
We must also consider that many homosexuals (even today, aside from the marriage issue) desire children. If homosexual couples who have children do divorce, the same issues mentioned above concerning divorce and the resulting lowered standard of living hold true for these couples as well.
The past successes in redefining the social mores concerning sex and marriage have resulted in high costs to society. While we can not be 100% sure this will be the case when society’s mores have successfully changed nationwide (indeed worldwide) concerning homosexual marriage, we must postulate there will be some consequences to society that will parallel previous successes.
Of course, we have not even begun to cover the other costs that attend sex outside of marriage, such as the psycho/socio problems, as well as physical problems, such as disease.
Additionally, concerning the practice of homosexual sex, there are costs to society that parallel those costs associated with heterosexual sex outside of marriage. However, there are also other physical costs that are inherent in sodomy that will increase in incidents of occurrence as more people embrace this option.
The people who wanted it easier to get divorces claimed it was for the good of the family, to protect from abuse. Now we have broken families everywhere. The costs are outragiously high (abuse still continues, children have no dad, all parties involved often suffer from depression for at least some period which in turns adversely affect society, increased poverty for single parent families, lowered access to decent educational opportunities, increases in hospital visits due to a lowered economic status not providing access to insurance, increases in drug abuse, etc). It has not proven to be a good thing.
People who suggest cohabitation is a good idea ignore the studies that those who cohabitate have a significantly increased risk for more emotionally painful breakups and divorce.
People who suggest that sex outside of marriage ignore the studies that show increased risks of disease and damage to factors that go into making good relationships, such as self-esteem, trust in self and others, the ability to make and keep committments, etc.
People who suggest any of these things are good ignore the fact that normalizing them have caused others to increase the likelihood of considering these things good and proper and desirable in many cases, or at least acceptable. This in turns increases the likelihood of adversely affecting others by influencing them to do these same things.
The same will occur with homosexual sex and homosexual unions, as they are normalized into our society.
Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, I hold the position that sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, abortion, cohabitation, divorce, and homosexual marriage are bad for individuals and society.
Of course, from a moral perspective, because my morals are deeply influenced by the BIble, I also hold these are wrong.
From a religious perspective, God said these are wrong (if not directly, the principles that support not participating in these acts are certainly in the Bible).